Not bad. I would have expected you to just sandbox the expression and
run it. Surely that's not hard to do in Gambit, and then you could
have accepted the various call/cc responses you're going to get, too.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> On 17-Oct-08, at 3:07 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>>> Dear Marc,
>>>> I am deeply disappointed to find out that the survey's designer does
>> not know Scheme. Apparently
>>>> (car '((a b c) x y z))
>>>> does NOT evaluate to
>>>> '(a b c)
>>>> (It apparently also doesn't evaluate to
>>>> (cons 'a (cons 'b (cons 'c empty)))
>>>> or to various other expressions that use call/cc, but I can excuse
>> those. The first error is unacceptable.)
>> Wow! I did not know you were a reductionist... I thought those folks died
> off a long time ago. But hey there is still hope for you... you could come
> to the next Scheme workshop to try to convince the rest of the Scheme
> community you are right (or be assimilated). Can I count on you?
>> Marc
>> P.S. I did handle the whitespace, case-sensitivity, square-bracket and
> dotted pair issues so that the following is accepted: [ A b . ( C)]
>>